Tres bien
(This
review contains minor spoilers!)
The live-action remakes of animated
classics is the latest trend Disney’s attached themselves to. We’ve seen
amazing reimaginings of Cinderella and
The Jungle Book, as well as
not-so-amazing versions of Alice in
Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty.
So when the Mouse House announced that
they were next going to adapt a tale as old as time, I was pretty excited! They
had a star-studded cast that fit the roles well, the set design looked to be on
par with Kenneth Branagh’s incredible Cinderella
palaces, and the CGI versions of the classic characters looked surprisingly
good. But as the weeks passed and the film’s release grew closer and closer, I
can’t deny that I was starting to worry. The 1991 animated version is pretty
much unanimously considered to be God-tier Disney. How do you remake a
basically perfect movie, one that was the first animated film to be nominated
for the Oscar for Best Picture?
I think the director came up with a
good solution to this dilemma. Let me just get this out of the way early: is Beauty and the Beast 2017 better than Beauty and the Beast 1991? No. Not even
close. The original is a masterclass in animation, character design and music,
with a lot of subtle touches that this movie, being live action, misses out on.
With that being said, I honestly don’t
view Beauty and the Beast 2017 as a
remake the same way a film like Jungle
Book was. This movie feels more like a Broadway production of the original
than anything, honestly. I think the director knew there was no way he could
top the original, and with that he decided to put on an entertaining pantomime
of the 1991 film instead of changing it around and trying to improve on what’s
already legendary.
Seriously, this movie at times can
feel like a shot for shot redo of the animated version. But considering the
quality of the source material, I didn’t find it to be much of a problem. This
movie isn’t concerned with being something new and different, or even topping
what was already great. Instead, it’s trying to be a fun interpretation using
some fantastic actors in the familiar roles, and it does a great job of being
just that.
The story is the same one you
remember: Belle is considered by her town to be an oddball because she prefers
reading to gawking over men, but despite this she’s caught the eye of the local
hunter Gaston. But through some confusion she’s whisked away to a mysterious
castle out in the woods, where she meets the monstrous Beast and his servants
cursed into the forms of household objects. There’s really nothing removed from
the story, just a few new tidbits sprinkled in every once and a while for
better or for worse.
Since we already know the story going
in, the real question is how the writers and actors deliver it. Like I said
before, the original had a lot of subtle cues in the animation that this
version misses out on (I’ll admit I was a little disappointed to find that
Belle isn’t the only person in her village that wears blue in this version),
but as an interpretation it works well. The script is basically word for word
the original at times, but, again, looking at this as rather a pantomime of the
original instead of a full-on updating, I think there’s nothing wrong with
that.
The actors, for the most part, do a
very good job. There’s really no bad performances in this film, although there
are a few that seem a little lackluster compared to the others.
Easily the highlights are Ewan
McGregor, Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson as Lumiere, Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts
respectively. While all three performances are clearly inspired by the original
characters, these legendary actors are truly able to own the roles. Thompson definitely
sounds a lot like Angela Lansbury in this, and McGregor uses an exaggerated
French accent not dissimilar to the one Jerry Orbach used in the original. The
animation on them is surprisingly good. The characters definitely have a more
realistic design compared to their anthropomorphized originals (although the
original designs are definitely more memorable), they truly feel alive and they
are able to carry emotional scenes.
Luke Evans is very clearly having a
blast playing Gaston, and this shines through in his performance. Yes, he’s not
as enormous as his animated counterpart is, but once you spend a few minutes
with him it quickly becomes clear that he was the right choice for the part.
Gaston is made much nicer in the beginning of the movie, being polite towards
Belle in trying to win her affection instead of stomping around in his muddy
boots and demanding she marry him. I honestly think this was a change for the
better. His transformation from polite but egotistical hunter to lunatic
storming up to the castle is portrayed very well by Evans, making him one of
the surprise highlights of the movie for me.
Josh Gad is a fun LeFou, but I do
think he was a little underwritten. In the first half of the movie he is
essentially the same character from the original with a lot of Gad’s influence
added, but midway through he feels like a completely different guy from the one
we just spent an hour with. They don’t give him much humour after the first
half either, and I was honestly kind of disappointed by that. I felt Gad could’ve
made him a really entertaining character, but he was essentially dropped
partway through the movie.
This leads us to our titular Beauty
and Beast. Starting with the Beast, I think that Dan Stevens did an excellent
job at capturing the warm and fuzzy side of the Beast. He made him an
incredibly likable character when he had to be, especially in the second half
of the movie. I do think he could’ve done a little better in capturing the darker
side of the Beast, though. When compared to the original, this Beast seems more
inconvenienced by the curse than tortured by it. I think a few extra scenes of
him hanging out in the West Wing with the enchanted rose would’ve gone much
further. In the original you start to feel sympathetic for him right after
Belle takes her father’s place at the castle, but here it’s not until after he
saves Belle from the wolves that we see his softer side. A bit of earlier
development for him would’ve made a good interpretation of the character even
better.
As for Emma Watson as Belle, she doesn’t
do a bad job by any means. She’s fine for what she is, and she doesn’t give a
straight-up bad performance. But for me she’s definitely the lowlight of the
movie. She honestly looks bored throughout the whole thing, and this really
sticks out when you look at how engaged Luke Evans or Emma Thompson are in
their performances. Belle in the original is incredibly expressive in both her
movements and her facial expressions, and I don’t think Watson really captured
that of the character. I do like that she really captured Belle’s love of
reading in her performance and how independent she is, and she still does an
overall good job. But still, compared to the rest of the cast I really think
she could’ve put in just a bit more effort.
Moving onto the music, I was very
excited to find that legendary Disney composer Alan Menken was making a return to
write some new songs for the movie. The new songs are added into scenes like
after Beast saves Belle from the wolves and when Belle leaves the castle to
save her father, and they work really well in the context of the movie. Being
Alan Menken all the songs are definitely up to snuff, adding a lot of emotional
resonance to the scenes. I don’t think they’re really songs people will want to
listen to over and over again though. They’re not as catchy as the original
songs, nor are they the type of thing you’d listen to off a soundtrack.
Speaking of the original songs, how do
they fare? Well, before coming to the movie I did something I rarely do: I
listened to the full soundtrack. Horrible, I know, but I just couldn’t resist.
And I’ve gotta say…I wasn’t impressed. The songs off the soundtrack just didn’t
sound right to me, and a few others I saw online shared that sentiment.
I’m pleased to say that the music
works extraordinarily better when listened to in context with the movie. To
call the musical numbers a spectacle to behold would be a huge understatement.
Everything from the choreography to the set design works in complete tandem
with each other, making classic numbers like “Belle”, “Be Our Guest” and “Gaston”
feel brand new. “Be Our Guest” is especially a sight to behold, and as someone
who was worried about that scene more than any other I can proudly say that it
was my absolute favourite in the movie. Again, none of them top the animated
version, but as a live action adaption the numbers truly are the best they can
possibly be.
I did have one problem with the songs,
and it was a problem that bothered me throughout the entire film: Emma Watson
and Dan Stevens are blatantly auto-tuned. Stevens doesn’t sing much and when he
does he’s using his Beast voice, so it’s a little more forgivable, but Watson
just plain can’t sing. Again, compared to Luke Evans, Josh Gad or Ewan McGregor
who all do exceptional singing performances these two stick out like a sore thumb.
The last thing I’d like to touch on is
the set design, because holy smokes, this movie is beautiful. I don’t know if I’d say it tops Cinderella (I haven’t watched that one in a while so I’d need a
refresher), but whoever worked on the castle perfectly captured the dark
fantasy atmosphere of the original. I loved how the entrance hall was taken
directly from the animated version, and the West Wing was appropriately intimidating.
The 3D version truly adds a lot of size and depth to the castle you don’t
really get from the original version, and with the addition of a lot of fun
classic 3D tricks this is definitely a movie that’s worth the discomfort of
those awful glasses.
Speaking of those glasses, I swear
they get worse and worse every time I go to the movies. I’m starting to think
they deliberately make them painful just so people won’t want to sneak them
out. This isn’t a gripe against the movie, but I just needed to vent about how
awful those glasses are. My ears hurt like crazy when I took them off at the
end.
Like I said at the top of my review, I
really don’t see Beauty and the Beast as
a “remake” of the original, but rather a spectacular pantomime of the original,
with fantastic actors taking a beloved script and performing it. And when you
look at it like that, I feel that this movie is a fantastic adaption of the
original. The actors all gave great performances, the music was delightfully
recomposed and choreographed, the new songs were great, and the set design was
gorgeous. Yes, there were a few character issues and I do think Emma Watson
could’ve tried a little harder, but overall these are easily forgiven when you
admire the spectacle of everything. This is one movie I’ll happily be the guest
of many times in the future.
FINAL SCORE
8/10
Great
No comments:
Post a Comment